Disliking Israell is different then vowing to destroying them. Was Iraq a threat?

I know you're going to pull that whole "It was a mistranslation" thing so I'll just skip that part. Regardless of what they say, they are not empty threats and disaproval. The Iranian government wants Israel gone and they're certainly not doing it the diplomatic way.

No Iraq wasn't a threat and it turned out they had no WMDs. Just like how it's going to be with Iran.

The Osirak is the only one you should be concerned about and they actually did have a reactor. If they would of used it against Israel is the concern but they weren't exactly friends with Israel either. They waged war with them along with several other Arab nations so you can see why they aren't trusting.

I know you're going to pull that whole "It was a mistranslation" thing so I'll just skip that part. Regardless of what they say, they are not empty threats and disaproval. The Iranian government wants Israel gone and they're certainly not doing it the diplomatic way.

Really? How do you know all this?

The Osirak is the only one you should be concerned about and they actually did have a reactor. If they would of used it against Israel is the concern but they weren't exactly friends with Israel either. They waged war with them along with several other Arab nations so you can see why they aren't trusting.

Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards[5].

No, that isint the case, Actually israel havng WMDs just makes this conflict even more serious.

Israel has had Nuclear weapons since the 60s and if anything, the fighting has gone down. It's more serious due to the capabilities of Israel but that fact is what is causing less fighting to occur. If you think that Iran having Nuclear weapons is going to deter Israel in the same way, when was the last time Israel attacked Iran?

or just google "iraq scud israel" and find better sources if you don't like the one i posted.

so fact is, iraq was a threat and attacking its reactor was justified.

Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards[5].

anyway, about iran.. mistranslation or whatever, iran wants to destroy israel. deny it all you want, it's the truth.

lol. "Iran wants to destroy Israel, they never said that or anything close to it, but it's the truth"

Israel has had Nuclear weapons since the 60s and if anything, the fighting has gone down. It's more serious due to the capabilities of Israel but that fact is what is causing less fighting to occur. If you think that Iran having Nuclear weapons is going to deter Israel in the same way, when was the last time Israel attacked Iran?

From the looks of things that is come soon, also israel didint use their nukes because we arabs didint manage to enter israeli land if so then they would have initated an insane nuclear doctrine.

So we're going to go with the naive "How do you know they want to destroy them?" attitude are we?

Many claim that the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor delayed Iraq's nuclear bomb program. But the Iraqi nuclear program before 1981 was peaceful, and the Osirak reactor was not only unsuited to making bombs but was under intensive safeguards[5].

20-20 hindsight. Pretty sure no-one would of been able to prove that they had no intentions and against someone you are actively waging war with, you don't consider if they have completely peaceful objectives. I think you are also forgetting that Iran was very active in the bombing of the Osirak so they aren't really pure.

20-20 hindsight. Pretty sure no-one would of been able to prove that they had no intentions and against someone you are actively waging war with, you don't consider if they have completely peaceful objectives. I think you are also forgetting that Iran was very active in the bombing of the Osirak so they aren't really pure.

So you attack them needlessly and then cry when they have something to deter you from doing so. Yeah that makes sense.

Not really, we just want to take palestine back from them but what the doctrine pretty much says "if you enter israeli land, we will longer send troops to fight you, we will just nuke you" and that leads to reckless destruction, i guess the israelis want to have the last laugh once we succeed.

To anyone who isn't deluded, it's pretty obvious they don't like Israel. The "destroying the Zionist regime" you think is so much better is still calling for the destruction of a sovereign state, something the UN has condemned many times.

Are you talking about Iraq in the first line?

Yes. All the information about Iraqs nuclear program being peaceful is not information that was available at the time. The safeguards on the reactor can't be assumed foolproof and that it's not going to help them in any way.

Not really, we just want to take palestine back from them but what the doctrine pretty much says "if you enter israeli land, we will longer send troops to fight you, we will just nuke you" and that leads to reckless destruction, i guess the israelis want to have the last laugh once we succeed.

Sorry if it's so hard to see but they don't want you to take it back. You can't just decide that the land is yours and invade them. Maybe if you stopped trying to take back the land and tries to live peacefuly with them, no-one would get nuked. Doesn't that sound better?

To anyone who isn't deluded, it's pretty obvious they don't like Israel. The "destroying the Zionist regime" you think is so much better is still calling for the destruction of a sovereign state, something the UN has condemned many times.

No, where the hell did you get "Destroying the Zionist regime". It's: "The regime occupying Jerusalem will collapse like the Soviet Union in Russia"

And yeah, they don't like Israel, what are you trying to prove?
Israel doesn't like Iran.
Greece doesn't like Turkey and vice versa
India doesn't like Pakistan and vice-versa
I can go on...

Yes. All the information about Iraqs nuclear program being peaceful is not information that was available at the time. The safeguards on the reactor can't be assumed foolproof and that it's not going to help them in any way.

Is that what's going to be said in the future about Iran; when it gets bombed?

It really annoys me, that simply because the Jews are the most hunted and oppressed people, they are instantly given a license to, torture, murder, do espionage shit, invade, segregate, and all that shit.

In fact, the US cut off aid to somewhere (maybe Palestine/Jordan), because Israel did shit to them and retaliated. Now whoever it was has got around 80% unemployment rate, simply because the businesses couldn't keep going without the aid. Most people there get around $32 USD a fortnight.

And now the fucking Israelis are going to nuke people who want to be able to KEEP UP with the world, not be a forgotten wreck, with no defence in the event of a nuclear war.

But hey, if Israel wants to kill some people simply because there is a possibility of a threat, then who am I to have a logical opinion?

Hell, thereís a possibility that someone will rape me viciously when I walk down the street, does that mean I ought to whip out an Uzi and mow down any one who looks at me funny? Nope... well, what if I was raped earlier? Surely that gives me the right? What? It doesnít? Well look at how this translates to this crisis?

To anyone who isn't deluded, it's pretty obvious they don't like Israel. The "destroying the Zionist regime" you think is so much better is still calling for the destruction of a sovereign state, something the UN has condemned many times.

if you mean sovereign as in flooding the mandate of palestine with illegal jewish immigrants in 1947-1948 despite the attempts of the royal navy to stop them then you should really learn more about diplomacy, and im afraid they are using the same tactic to expand israeli borders in the west bank, they use jewish settlers to force the palestinains out and then tell the UN its their borders.

Sorry if it's so hard to see but they don't want you to take it back. You can't just decide that the land is yours and invade them. Maybe if you stopped trying to take back the land and tries to live peacefuly with them, no-one would get nuked. Doesn't that sound better?

That is impossible, if you see the truth israel does not want peace, even the blind can see that, thats why they arm themsevles to the teeth while they themselves know they are occupiying an arab state but dont want to give it up, thats why they attacked a boat filled with peace activists carrying supplies for gaza (which a family freind was on) and then they send special forces to kill them, despite them only being armed with improvised weapons while the isralies had submachine guns and body armour, also the fact is that they bully their naeighbours to have things their way and make sure they dont grow powerful enough to not listen to them anymore and if they do the isralies try to fool the foreign news viewers into thinking they are the good guys, so dont tell us to be peaceful to them, we arabs are known to be good people who are generous and helping why would we even attack them if it was for no real cause, but you tell them to admit they are the wrong doers, also that is our land, that is the land of the arabs, and they have no right to take it from us and establish their facist ideological empire of "judea", and we are not going to end up being their slaves, we outnumber them and if we unite we will be victorious.

No, where the hell did you get "Destroying the Zionist regime". It's: "The regime occupying Jerusalem will collapse like the Soviet Union in Russia"

And yeah, they don't like Israel, what are you trying to prove?
Israel doesn't like Iran.
Greece doesn't like Turkey and vice versa
India doesn't like Pakistan and vice-versa
I can go on...

Iran isn't exactly a stable country. Some countries prove they are grown up and that they can be trusted with Nuclear weapons, Iran is not one of these countries. Don't say it's about Israel or Islam either, Pakistan has nukes but due to cooperation with the US and a contingiency plan that doesn't involve letting them fall into terrorist hands, they are semi trustworthy.

Just like all nations, Nuclear weapons are discouraged. Israel has them and the only thing you can do now is try to bargain with them as anything else is too risky. Iran is developing them and while they will not bargain or negotiate, it is not as large of risk to use force.

Is that what's going to be said in the future about Iran; when it gets bombed?

If Iran has no Nuclear weapons and was in no way developing them then there's no way we could of known. There is a probability that they are developing Nuclear weapons and when it becomes too much of a risk, that is when action is taken. If Iran cooperated, they could lower everyone's percieved risk but until then, we can't just allow them to do whatever they want just because we aren't sure.

We can do that or as a last resort, use special forces to destroy them, because those are the last guys to trust with nuclear Weapons

Well your trust is hardly the thing I would advise world leaders on. If you understood anything about militaries and security though, you would know that there is only so much special forces can do and I don't think breaking through the Uber security of a Nuclear arsenal is within their abilities. I do like however that you think negotiation is a last resort and bloodshed is the first course of action, really says a lot about your character.

Well your trust is hardly the thing I would advise world leaders on. If you understood anything about militaries and security though, you would know that there is only so much special forces can do and I don't think breaking through the Uber security of a Nuclear arsenal is within their abilities. I do like however that you think negotiation is a last resort and bloodshed is the first course of action, really says a lot about your character.

obviously you havent read my comment carfully, we negotiate first, then if they are not listening we have no choice but to destory those nukes, also it is possilbe for a special forces unit to do that, after all thats why we call them the SPECIAL forces, they are trained and given advanced equipment do tasks such as these, also how come well known special forces units did such tasks, for example the US special forces once managed to stop saddam hussien from constructing a supergun, and obvouslly he made sure it was secure, after all, a supergun could fire at longer distances than regular artillery, who wouldnt want to make such a weapon secure if it would save them money from producing or buying artillery and would have a strategic advantage.

obviously you havent read my comment carfully, we negotiate first, then if they are not listening we have no choice but to destory those nukes, also it is possilbe for a special forces unit to do that, after all thats why we call them the SPECIAL forces, they are trained and given advanced equipment do tasks such as these, also how come well known special forces units did such tasks, for example the US special forces once managed to stop saddam hussien from constructing a supergun.

Your english isn't very good so it's hard to tell what you mean. I don't think the negotiations you want to make are really adequate as I'm sure one of your demands would be for them to not exist any more.

Saddam's Supergun was a bit different to a Nuclear weapon. The head researcher was assasinated and the parts to build it had to travel through Europe before getting to Iraq. Obviously his supergun is just a large piece of artillery so it's a fair bit easier to destroy, plus Israel already has them under lock and key. You can't kill anyone because it's redundant enough to survive an assasination, they have enough bombs and enough security to prevent any attempt to destroy them and the only quick and effective way to destroy a nuclear weapon you know nothing about is to detonate it.

Your english isn't very good so it's hard to tell what you mean. I don't think the negotiations you want to make are really adequate as I'm sure one of your demands would be for them to not exist any more.

Saddam's Supergun was a bit different to a Nuclear weapon. The head researcher was assasinated and the parts to build it had to travel through Europe before getting to Iraq. Obviously his supergun is just a large piece of artillery so it's a fair bit easier to destroy, plus Israel already has them under lock and key. You can't kill anyone because it's redundant enough to survive an assasination, they have enough bombs and enough security to prevent any attempt to destroy them and the only quick and effective way to destroy a nuclear weapon you know nothing about is to detonate it.

If you ask the teachers at my school they will they will say the contrarey, also the fact was that that supergun was big enough to be able to fire rounds that could contain a small nuclear bomb, so therefore that would be no diffrent than a jericho missle eqquiped with a nuclear warhead (a nuclear weapon only needs a medium to be destructive), also the negotiations would be for the sake of the civillains rather than the millitary, we dont want civilians to be suffering with radiation poisoning once the war ends with an arab victory, also there is no such thing as having impenetrable security, there is always a weak spot, like a hacker entering a computer, he/she finds the weak spots to enter and get the job done.

If you ask the teachers at my school they will they will say the contrarey, also the fact was that that supergun was big enough to be able to fire rounds that could contain a small nuclear bomb, so therefore that would be no diffrent than a jericho missle eqquiped with a nuclear warhead, also the negotiations would be for the sake of the civillains rather than the millitary, we dont want civilians to be suffering with radiation poisoning once the war ends with an arab victory, also there is no such thing as having impenetrable security, there is always a weak spot, like a hacker entering a computer, he/she finds the weak spots to enter and get the job done.

Except for the fact that it was appallingly inaccurate and Iraq doesn't actually have Nuclear weapons. It would of been a failure for the same reason the US doesn't use oversized artillery, rockets are better. Even Saddam loved the US Tomahawk missiles.

It's kinda funny though, what you are talking about is terms for a surrender, not negotiations. Negotiations are when you talk peacefuly and try to come to a mutually beneficial agreement, terms of surrender are when you give them some kind of concession for letting you trample all over them. I really hope you do not represent the younger generation of Arabs because if so, all hope is lost.

I'm pretty sure nothing is going to happen. Israel won't risk open war with Iran. Besides the way technology is going ICBM's could be obsolete in a decade or two.

Agreed, such an act would only take place if the threat posed was far more real than it currently is. It's still going to be a longshot to make ICBMs completely obselete though, laser defense grids aren't nearly advanced enough and there will always be a probability of a few getting through. Also, nukes still have their power, even if it's dropped as a dumb bomb then it's still fucking powerful.

Except for the fact that it was appallingly inaccurate and Iraq doesn't actually have Nuclear weapons. It would of been a failure for the same reason the US doesn't use oversized artillery, rockets are better. Even Saddam loved the US Tomahawk missiles.

It's kinda funny though, what you are talking about is terms for a surrender, not negotiations. Negotiations are when you talk peacefuly and try to come to a mutually beneficial agreement, terms of surrender are when you give them some kind of concession for letting you trample all over them. I really hope you do not represent the younger generation of Arabs because if so, all hope is lost.

What im saying is that if iraq aqquired nuclear weapons, they could be carried in an artillery shell, also the US did have artillery designed to carry such shells, saddams supergun could have done the same.

When i mean negotiations i mean we try to tell them to disarm because in case a war starts there wont be many civillian loses, if not we use special forces to destroy the nuclear warheads, the missles and planes that could carry them, and the production facilities that manufacture them, its called strategy, also most of the young arabs dont care about the situation but still support the palestinians and the politically oriented ones (such as myself) want to liberate palestine, but there are pro israeli arabs, but they are a VERY small minority, i my self supported them for a short time, and used the same excuses you are using but historically the pro-palestinians are right and that shifted my opinion

What im saying is that if iraq aqquired nuclear weapons, they could be carried in an artillery shell, also the US did have artillery designed to carry such shells, saddams supergun could have done the same.

When i mean negotiations i mean we try to tell them to disarm because in case a war starts there wont be many civillian loses, if not we use special forces to destroy the nuclear warheads, the missles and planes that could carry them, and the production facilities that manufacture them, its called strategy.

The US had Artillery that could launch Nuclear shells yes but there's a reason they don't use them now, because they suck. They are nowhere near as accurate, cost a fuckload for every shot, require ridiculous levels of engineering and overall aren't worth it.

I'm starting to see your point of view with the nukes though, you seem to be suicidaly determined to destroy Israel that the threat of nukes isn't a threat at all.

The warheads and missiles are attached and they are in underground bunkers far away from where you can get them. You can't destroy their production facilities because the amount of planes and misiles they already have is enough to decimate the Arabs. Destroy those ones too you say? Good luck seeing as in the last war they gained air superiority within hours and you would have no chance in hell at destroying even 5% of their planes while they were on the ground before they upped security and went to full scale war with your stupid ass. You can't do shit to Israel now get over it.